Caring until the end
Caring until the end
The end of life can be a fraught, sensitive, and distressing time both for the person approaching death and their families. Many endure pain and suffering and extended illness before their natural end.
Under modern understandings of personal autonomy, people naturally desire an end to suffering and pain, especially when a prognosis is terminal.
However, a critical and dangerous line is crossed when the law allows the medical industry to actively enact death rather than prioritising care and comfort until the natural end. Once euthanasia becomes one option among others, it decreases the need for investment in certain life-extending treatments and palliative care.
Understanding euthanasia and assisted suicide in the ACT
The end of life can be a fraught, sensitive, and distressing time both for the person approaching death and their families. Many endure pain and suffering and extended illness before their natural end.
Under modern understandings of personal autonomy, people naturally desire an end to suffering and pain, especially when a prognosis is terminal.
However, a critical and dangerous line is crossed when the law allows the medical industry to actively enact death rather than prioritising care and comfort until the natural end. Once euthanasia becomes one option among others, it decreases the need for investment in certain life-extending treatments and palliative care.
Myths
The ACT’s safeguards will protect the vulnerable
Once the regime is in place, there is very little incentive for doctors to reject a euthanasia application from anyone who fits the criteria. A doctor that will not approve euthanasia may be required to refer a patient to a doctor who will, removing the ability for counselling different options.
It’s a person’s free choice
Once euthanasia is an option among many, all of the incentives for end-of-life medical care change. Cases in Canada and Europe have arisen where patients have been encouraged to consider euthanasia because of medical costs and budget considerations. Likewise, whether intentional or not, patients can feel pressure from family and friends to “not be a burden” and feel obliged to pursue assisted dying once the culture endorses euthanasia.
They got the law right and it won’t change
There is virtually no precedent for an assisted dying regime to stay the same once it begins. The degree to which the law becomes more permissive is different between jurisdictions, but over time, every country that has introduced euthanasia has expanded eligibility.
FAQ
What’s the difference between euthanasia and assisted dying?
Euthanasia generally refers to when someone else administers the means of death. This could be, for example, a doctor giving a lethal injection.
Assisted Dying refers to when the patient administers the cause of death themselves. For example, the person themselves presses a button that administers a lethal drug or gas.
In general, current laws make very little distinction between these methods and they both amount to sanctioning death in a way that violates principles of dignity and compassion.
Shouldn’t I have a right to die with dignity?
Death is a reality we all have to face. It is not pleasant to think about, it can be messy and painful. But the presence of pain and mess doesn’t take away a person’s dignity. Their dignity is found in being human, not in their current health status.
It is also not the case that the methods used in assisted dying are “dignified”. Lethal injection can lead to convulsions and pain, as can the use of gasses to induce death.
Are you just advocating for people to be forced to stay alive no matter what?
No. Opposition to euthanasia does not mean people must be kept alive no matter what. There is no moral concern with Do Not Resuscitate orders, or the ethics around sustaining life indefinitely through invasive procedures. The important distinction is between proactively inducing death and allowing death to come naturally.
There may come a time where treatment and life support must cease, and that’s where palliative care is vital. People should be made comfortable, have their pain alleviated, and allowed to reach a natural end.
Should euthanasia be available to those in unendurable pain?
Leaving aside the uncertainty around what constitutes “unendurable pain”, there is no reason those with terminal illnesses should not be permitted to receive all the pain relief possible. But it does not follow that they should be killed.
The solution to inadequate pain relief is not to kill patients, but to ensure better education and resources for medical professionals to reduce pain.
Aren’t you just imposing religious belief?
No. While the concept of the dignity of the human person is shared with many religions, it is not necessarily religious. In fact, human dignity is the foundation of most morality and law across cultures. Many religious people are opposed to euthanasia, informed by their faith. But many non-religious people are also part of the Right to Life movement, understanding that protecting the vulnerable and defending life helps to make a better world today.